What Obama has promised as a "tax cut" for the majority of Americans is actually a refundable tax credit. This means that non-taxpayers can receive checks from the government; people who pay no federal taxes or less tax than the tax credit amount are still eligible. Of course, Obama would not call this a "welfare check" - but that's essentially what it is. These tax credits will be paid for by the wealthy, who will experience a tax hike. While this may be justice for some, there are a number of reasons why welfare states are problematic. As mentioned by the Wall Street Journal , this policy can actually "be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year" as part of Obama's plan. The WSJ also points out that under Obama's plan, with 44 percent of tax filers having no tax liability but most receiving tax credit checks, we'd be looking at welfare expenses that are four times what they are now - and with his insistence to raise the capital gains tax , a likelihood of decreased revenue.
Now, I may not have a degree in economics, but basic common sense dictates that it's problematic to spend money you don't have.
I recently spent some time in a seventh grade classroom where students were participating in an activity where their teacher would describe an issue (without mentioning political parties or candidates) and students would go to one side of the room or the other depending on what they believed about the issue. On the issue of war in Iraq, the students almost unanimously supported Obama's position. Healthcare? Same story. But when it came to taxation, when the teacher asked, "Should the rich be taxed a higher percentage than the poor," their 12-year-old sense of justice told them that no, that wouldn't be fair. One girl voiced that if someone worked hard for their money, why should the government take it away?
Of course the world is more complicated than as viewed by these seventh grade students, and social responsibility does dictate that to him who is given much, much is expected. But these kinds of welfare policies - not unlike bailouts - give more power to the government, and the government decides more and more where my money goes, which I see as an encroachment on my liberty. (I must keep in mind that many organizations that I don't endorse - like ACORN - get large amounts of government money, and that's likely to increase under Obama.) Economic policies, the likes of which I've described, also turn seemingly well-intentioned "social engineering" into widespread economic turmoil - something I expect to see in the next four (if I allow myself to be a pessimist, eight) years if Obama does not wake up to the harsh realities of where this type of path, favored by ACORN, leads.
